[Fis] Book Presentation. The Interpersonal domain. Good Dualism and Bad Dualism

Mariusz Stanowski stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
Fri Apr 29 09:47:01 CEST 2022

Dear Markus,

Thank you for your interesting comments and questions which I try to 
answer. I will first address the comment about contrast which will also be a
continuation of the answer to Pedro's question, the beginning of which 
is on the bottom of this page.

You've written:
"CONTRASTS – I sense some reluctance in the group to using 'contrasts' 
as a core term, which I tend to agree with. I understand you (Mariusz) 
feel differently. Initially, I liked this use of contrasts but the more 
I read and reflected, I felt 'contrasts' holds TOO MUCH without allowing 
adequate simplifying detail (from an information science perspective). 
Historically, contrast has obvious ties to Bateson's 'a difference that 
makes a difference' and ties to entropy (Shannon S-entropy, AND 
Boltzmann T-entropy). All can be seen as 'types of contrasts' (in 
addition to aesthetic contrasts) but they also fail due to their own 
lack of needed specificity.
Where my thoughts ended is that a generic sense of entropy (G-entropy) 
might be used to suitably frame all cases, using notions of 'adjacency' 
(S. Kauffmann) and 'remoteness' (chaos theory) as degrees entropic 
freedom (as a universal, whether as signal, thermal, or aesthetic) for a 
natural universal/generic continuum. In some ways, Karl's note on using 
natural numbers also seemed to head in this 'entropic direction', but by 
somewhat different (less universal) means."

I finished my previous answer (below) with the statement: *Thus, we can 
also equate contrast with complexity.*

Here is the continuattion which is the answer for above comment:

The essence of complexity and contrast is expressed by a binary model 
consisting of three eight-element binary structures: *10010110, 
10101010, 10100011*; each contains 4 ones and 4 zeros but with a 
different arrangement, which implies a different number of substructures 
(or information) that can be extracted in them – in the first structure 
– 8, in the second – 1 and in the third – 3.Each of these substructures 
contains common and differentiating features whichcreate contrast. For 
example, in the first structure, substructure – double elements (double 
0’s and double 1’s) create a contrast where the common feature is 
double-ness, while the differentiating feature is value (of 1 and 0).

This simple model provides important conclusions:

1.Among structures with the same number of elements, the most complex 
(creating the greatest contrast) is the one that has the greatest number 
of distinguishable substructures (according to the definition of 
contrast and complexity).

2.In a more complex structure the same amount of energy which here is 
represented by four ones (energy quanta) is needed to obtain more 
information. The perception of a complex structure is therefore more 
economical (cost-effective) and thus preferred. This is also where our 
aesthetic preferences andbeauty come from. An example is the golden 
division which has more features/information than any other division 
(the additional feature is the well known golden proportion).

3.The energy-information relationship and the value of information is 
explained here. The model shows that more complex, organised and 
therefore more valuable information requires less perceptive energy.This 
kind of organisation can be defined as information compression because 
it saves energy. In the Abstract Complexity Definition (I formulated in 
2011), information compression, defined as the degree of organization is 
one factor of complexity and expressed by the number of substructures 
(capital N), divided by the number of elements, zeros and ones (lower 
case n) – the another factor is the size of compressed area(because it 
is more difficult to compress larger area) expressed by the number of 
substructures (N). So Abstract Complexity Definitiondefines 
complexity(C) as number of substructures (N) to the power of two, 
divided by number of zeros and ones (n).:

This formula directly refers to the binary structure and can be applied 
to any domain that can be formalized in digital form (e.g. music). It 
also allows to understand the essence of complexity and information 
compression in the most general (abstract) sense, and therefore apply to 
any structure of reality in the sense that it helps to find the way of 
information compression and complexity in any particular area. This 
makes it possible to pursue complexity more consciously (an example 
could be any text, where we try to be most concise).

I would like to point out here that information compression is common 
wherever development in the broad sense of the term takes place. *We 
deal with it during perception, learning, cognition and creativity. It 
also is the objective cause of contrast, interaction, complexity, 
development, our preferences, pleasure, beauty, value and goodness.*

The above understanding of information (as each distinguishable 
substructure or a form of energy) is structural and general, and can be 
applied to all areas of reality. The exception is the technical 
application of information (e.g. in telecommunication or computer 
science), where each information must be distinguished and identified 
unambiguously, to avoid confusion in processing. Therefore, Shannon's 
information is not related to a system, but to the state of a set, which 
is a combination of equally distinct elements. Thus, we are not dealing 
here with complex systems/structures of coherently connected elements, 
but with collections, which can also be classified as structures, but 
with poor coherence. *Shannon’s information is therefore a special case 
of structural information* and in fact limited to narrow technical area. 
Nevertheless, it is widely used beyond the technical context as a 
general and universal definition, together with associated algorithmic 
definition of complexity. Many misunderstandings arise from this.

An example could be the Algorithmic Complexity (a shortest description 
length) applied to the concept called Low-Complexity Art, by well known 
computer scientist—Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997), where he concludes that 
the aesthetic attractiveness of objects (e.g. Leonardo da Vinci 
artworks) is inversely proportional to their complexity. From our 
considerations it appears exactly the opposite – that greater contrast, 
value, art and beauty is where complexity is greater, that is, where 
receiving information we save more energy.

Understanding what complexity and organization is, also allows to 
understand how highly organized structures/objects such as living 
organisms are created and what is their evolution and development. 
*Development as well as contrast, complexity and compression of 
information (that is, the economy resulting from energy savings) can be 
identified with the value in general, hence with the value of 
information.*In the above sense, valuable information should also 
include the so-called free energy. Let us see how Seth Lloyd explains it:

The laws of thermodynamics guide the interplay between our two actors, 
energy and information. To experience another example of the first and 
second laws, take a bite of an apple. The sugars in the apple contain 
what is called free energy. Free energy is energy in a highly ordered 
form associated with a relatively low amount of entropy. In the case of 
the apple, the energy in sugar is stored not in the random jiggling of 
atoms but in the ordered chemical bonds that hold sugar together. It 
takes much less information to describe the form of energy present in a 
billion ordered chemical bonds than it does to describe that same energy 
spread among a billion jiggling atoms. The relatively small amount of 
information required to describe this energy makes it available for use: 
that’s why it’s called free. (Lloyd 2006).

Therefore, free energy is a "highly ordered form", which is exactly what 
we have defined as a more complex system/structure. The availability of 
energy contained in this system is explained by the small amount of 
information needed to describe it: /The relatively small amount of 
information required to describe this energy makes it available for use: 
that’s why it’s called free/. On the one hand, the above conclusion 
seems logical: less information can be absorbed more quickly (and 
therefore easier) than more information. Let's check, however, if this 
principle is general and consider another example in which the 
description of energy is also shorter.

If we take, for example, sand or polyethylene instead of sugar, then 
here we also deal with chemical compounds and not with the accidental 
movement of atoms, therefore the description of their energy requires 
less information (it is shorter). According to the above explanation, 
energy should also be available here for us. However, this does not 
happen, which contradicts this explanation. The above example shows the 
application inadequacy of the algorithmic information and complexity 
outside the technical context, where the information values are various 
and not determined only by their quantity (an example is a monkey 
writing a text more complex than Shakespeare’s novel). What is important 
is the value of information, not the length of its description. 
Considered an example of apple consumption, in the light of our 
considerations, it can be interpreted as follows: the availability of 
(free) energy depends primarily on a sufficiently large number/strength 
of features (information) common to our body (digestive system) and the 
product that we want to digest (that is – a given form of energy which 
we would like to join), hence from the possibility of 
contrast/interaction. This contrast (that is – a value of the product 
consumed) will be the greater the stronger will be the common features 
of the organism and the product (while maintaining the impact of 
different characteristics).

Also, the magnitude of contrast of the atomic system and not the length 
of its description is significant when comparing the set of disordered 
atoms and the chemical compound. Orderly atoms have more (stronger) 
characteristics than chaotic ones. Strengthening the impact of common 
features while maintaining the impact of differentiating features is 
associated with increased contrast and complexity. Important 
differentiating features here, are isolated (different) atoms that do 
not cease to be separated after strengthening common features. On the 
other hand, irrelevant (less distinctive) differences in the random 
motion of atoms disappear. Thus, chemical compounds are characterized by 
greater complexity, that is, higher value of information contained in 
them than the value (of a larger number) of information contained in 
disordered atoms.

A similar example is the complexity of the crystal in relation to the 
disordered state (gas). A well-known concept states that “complexity is 
situated between order and disorder, or, using a recently fashionable 
expression, "on the edge of chaos". (Heylighen 1999: 3). According to 
ACD the highest complexity and contrast (because of strong connections) 
is in crystal.


Let’s see some other examples.

Another example, in which the logical depth functions as a confirmation 
of the complexity of the system, are the fractal patterns that make up 
e.g. snowflakes, shoreline, or cellular automata. A special supporter of 
such confirmation is Stephen Wolfram fascinated by the beauty and 
“complexity” of these patterns, as expressed in his book New Kind of 
Science (Wolfram, 2002). The complexity of fractal patterns, as well as 
their aesthetic value, is not confirmed. Judging by the absence of such 
patterns in art, their aesthetic value (and therefore complexity) is not 
among the highest.

There are also conflicting views on the subject of energy-information 
relations to this day. Some theorists believe that information can be 
identified with energy, others think in the opposite way. E.g. Carl, 
Friedrich von Weizsäcker in his book The Unity of Nature (Weizsäcker, 
1978) states the identity of form and matter and measuring them - 
information (measuring the amount of form) and mass (measuring the 
amount of matter). This understanding, however, is valid only for 
information understood (as defined by Shannon) as an element of the 
collection (states of a system), that is, where every information 
corresponds to a single, specific portion of energy—needed for recording 
or transmission of information (the code structure of the information is 
not taken here into account), but it is not right where (distinguishing) 
elements form a coherent organized wholes (as a result of relationships 
with other elements). Here the energy of recording and transmission of 
information is identified with the energy contained in the structure of 
a given information (number of ones) and may be different for different 
information. *In such well-organized objects/structures (e.g. such as 
the brain) thanks to information compression and the associated energy 
savings, the amount of information per unit of energy is greater than in 
less complex/organized objects.*

Energy is necessary for the existence and transmission of information 
(matter/energy, speaking Aristotelian is the possibility of form). No 
form exists without energy—hence the view of some theoreticians 
(Weizsäcker) that information identifies with energy), but not all 
information requires the same amount of energy—hence the view of some 
theoreticians (Wiener) that information is not energy.These two views 
are reconciled by the concept of energy savings in information compression.

The concept of information compression is not currently used outside of 
a technical context. Nor is the principle of energy saving in objects 
with higher complexity taken into account. However this principle 
clarifies and integrates fundamental questions such as: 
*contrast/interaction, art, beauty, creation, development, value, 
consciousness, emergence, complexity, information, Artificial 
Intelligence creativity and self-awareness, universe construction* *and 
being*, and introduces a new quality to our knowledge.

Best regards


W dniu 2022-04-28 o 08:59, Mariusz Stanowski pisze:
> Pedro has written:
> Beyond philosophical nuances, one of the most intriguing aspects of 
> art would concern its relationship with the intellectual & cultural 
> ethos of each epoch.
> Art, stemming from inner drives of almost unfathomable origins, seems 
> to provide a compensation for some of the absences in the daily life 
> of citizens (a mostly urban phenomenon).
> The observer, or listener, gets some of the intellective/emotional 
> contents emitted by the art producer, and that's satisfying for the 
> permanent search for novelty that characterizes our species in 
> civilized life regimes.
> Your polysemic use of "contrast" is well adapted to discuss the above, 
> I think, both in the art object and in the receiver whole appreciation.
> Since the answer to Pedro's question is not easy, I will divide it 
> into several steps. First, I will try to introduce a deeper 
> understanding of the concept of contrast.
> Contrast understood as interaction of common and different features of 
> objects goes far beyond its current understanding - as a contradiction 
> or a big difference. Contradiction and difference take into account 
> only extremes of one feature, e.g. hot-cold, dark-bright, big-small, 
> which falsifies the image of reality (because there are no objects 
> having only one feature) and makes these concepts completely useless 
> as tools of analysis.
> Contrast understood as tension also takes into account interaction of 
> all features of objects, also qualitatively different, e.g. direction 
> and colour or size and shape can create contrast (tension). It is 
> currently believed that these features, e.g. size and colour, are 
> incomparable, do not have a common connecting element and therefore do 
> not create contrast. However, the truth is that all objects known to 
> us have more features through which they connect to other objects of 
> reality (because they are no isolated) which should also be taken into 
> account. In a contrast that takes into account more features, the 
> connecting role is played by other features (in common) of the 
> contrasting objects. In Figure 1a the connecting role of "shape" 
> (triangle) and "size" (big circle) is played by the feature of their 
> "isolation" (standing out from the background), in Figure 1b the 
> connecting role of “direction” (inclined rectangle) and “colour” 
> (darker rectangle) is played by the features of their shape and size.
> *ab*
> **
> **
> *Figure 1*. In Figure 1a, the connecting role of "shape" and "size" is 
> played by the feature of "isolation", in Figure 1b the connecting role 
> of “direction” and “colour” is played by the features of shape and size.
> Contrast, understood in this way, is linked to other fundamental 
> issues e.g. *development.* The common features unite the contrasting 
> objects into a new structure possessing the features of those objects, 
> so contrast can be identified with development. A similar general view 
> one can find in Whitehead’s cosmology (Whitehead 1978).
> Another important association is with the intuitive criterion of 
> complexity, which is formulated as follows: *the complexity of an 
> object/structure is greater the more elements can be distinguished in 
> it and the more connections there are between them* (Heylighen 1999). 
> If we replace "connections" with "common features" and 
> "distinguishable elements" with "differentiating features", we get a 
> definition of contrast. *Thus, we can also equate contrast with 
> complexity. *
> Best regards
> Mariusz
> W dniu 2022-04-26 o 14:20, Pedro C. Marijuan pisze:
>> Dear Mariusz,
>> Beyond philosophical nuances, one of the most intriguing aspects of 
>> art would concern its relationship with the intellectual & cultural 
>> ethos of each epoch.
>> Art, stemming from inner drives of almost unfathomable origins, seems 
>> to provide a compensation for some of the absences in the daily life 
>> of citizens (a mostly urban phenomenon).
>> The observer, or listener, gets some of the intellective/emotional 
>> contents emitted by the art producer, and that's satisfying for the 
>> permanent search for novelty that characterizes our species in 
>> civilized life regimes.
>> Your polysemic use of "contrast" is well adapted to discuss the 
>> above, I think, both in the art object and in the receiver whole 
>> appreciation.
>> The curious point is that the historical evolution of art becomes a 
>> fascinating mirror of social evolution itself. Thinking on Western 
>> art (classic, medieval, renaissance, neoclassic, modern...), how 
>> contents and styles have been evolved with the mentality of each 
>> epoch.... Reminding about "media", It would echo what McLuhan was 
>> saying about means of communication: every new media alters the 
>> psychic equilibrium and forces a mental readaptation of the 
>> individual within the whole communication mosaic.
>> Coming to our times, How far could go the present "deconstruction" of 
>> art, seemingly reduced to presentation of brute "novelty"?
>> Is there a way back to art contents satisfying the appetite  for 
>> intellective/emotional contents?
>> To complicate things for the worse, some portions of "public art" 
>> seem to have been swallowed by the superultimate "cancelation culture".
>> Is there anything left uncensored of the cultural & artistic past?
>> I will appreciate your comments & opinions --and of the list colleagues,
>> Best--Pedro
>> El 26/04/2022 a las 9:41, Mariusz Stanowski escribió:
>>> Dear Joseph,
>>> Thank you for your clarification, however I was only referring to 
>>> Cartesian dualism.
>>> You also write that "the best art is neither totally realistic or 
>>> abstract but has features of both".
>>> My understanding is that there is no absolutely abstract or 
>>> realistic art at all. In the history of
>>> art we had both realism (Courbet) and abstractionism (Kandinsky).
>>> Best regards
>>> Mariusz
>>> W dniu 2022-04-24 o 16:06, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch pisze:
>>>> Dear Mariusz,
>>>> Please let me try this first rapid response, without re-presenting 
>>>> my entire approach. I understand your desire to avoid dualism, but 
>>>> dualism is a part of physics, of our world. There is thus "bad" 
>>>> dualism, which brings in invidious distinctions and separations. 
>>>> "Good" dualism  recognizes the fundamental difference between what 
>>>> is (primarily) actual and (primarily) potential, as well as the 
>>>> movement from one to the other, and between many other real pairs.
>>>> In my logic, ontological and epistemological entities are in any 
>>>> event not totally distinct, but /some/ share /some/ of one 
>>>> another's properties, as do parts and wholes and so on, without 
>>>> conflation.
>>>> The dualism of electrostatic charge and magnetic polarity are real 
>>>> and influence the way we exist and feel neurologically, and 
>>>> cognitively. Another example is what is called colloquially "up" 
>>>> and "down" nuclear spin, and there is some thought that some 
>>>> sub-atomic particles are self-dual. I have even suggested that a 
>>>> form of self-duality may exist at cognitive levels of reality.
>>>> As I stated above, the best art is neither totally realistic or 
>>>> abstract but has features of both. Perhaps the best strategy is to 
>>>> keep an open mind on the subject or perhaps, like some sets, a 
>>>> closed-open (clopen) mind.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Joseph
>>>>     ----Message d'origine----
>>>>     De : stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
>>>>     Date : 24/04/2022 - 10:52 (CEST)
>>>>     À : fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>     Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. The Interpersonal domain
>>>>     Dear Joseph,
>>>>     You've written: "such as information processes, has both an
>>>>     ontic and an epistemic component"
>>>>     If we introduce a distinction between ontic and epistemic then
>>>>     we are assuming a dualistic view in advance, which, for
>>>>     example, I am not in favor of.
>>>>     Best regards
>>>>     Mariusz
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
>> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>> Editor special issue: Evolutionary dynamics of social systems
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biosystems/special-issue/107DGX9V85V
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> 	Libre de virus. www.avast.com 
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220429/c5d29257/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: f0zDV3221iUrogV1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 830 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220429/c5d29257/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yuQsg01Zm04UvuDl.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4918 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220429/c5d29257/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joR0FRJsxJmYcupP.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220429/c5d29257/attachment-0003.jpg>

More information about the Fis mailing list